C0deb1ue
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by C0deb1ue
-
-
10 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:
As bittersweet as it gets, another megaboss on foot, while looking cool, was just about the absolute last thing I would want... Nobody ever brings 2 and the current kit is great... At least if it was a warchanter that would be better, as the army needs 2-3 to work, with only 1 sculpt available
I am aware though that these models can't be too exclusive, and if it had been an update to an old kit people would riot, like a new plastic slann.
Still hoping for Ironjawz some day, but with Kruleboyz taking the spotlight and Beastsnaggas in 40k it will probably take a long while for the best greenskins to get attention again.
If they don’t get a release with the Kruleboyz and battletome, then you are waiting till AoS 4 essentially.
I’m sure that there will be another wave of Lumineth to buy in the meantime though. Woot.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
Oh, sweet summer child. Pretty much all armies get some kind of update every three years or so and there are FAQs & Erratas every six months. Glacial is back in old WHFB/40k days where an army may receive one new book per edition if they were lucky, with no updates if something was printed wrong. I think I went 3 editions of 40k without a new Space Wolves codex...
If you can get a collective consensus from 1000 players, hats off to you, it's like herding cats. Let's be honest most threads on here have a dozen people who don't have the same point of view 🤣
Yes, but you can't Unleash Hell the same unit twice in a single phase. You also don't need to have a hero within range - you could feasibly Unleash Hell on a random artillery piece in the corner of the table.
I think you need to want better. If they were worse before at updating stuff then that’s bad, doesn’t mean what is happening now is good just because it isn’t as bad as before.
GW FAQs/point adjustments are pretty poor generally and tend to overshoot or not address the issues. Real Change, i.e changes to warscrolls seem to happen once every edition and the majority of the bad design decisions cant be fixed with point adjustments.
-
5
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Reinholt said:
I will bring this up to make a point: the history of GW has been awful balance. Anyone remember nigh-invulnerable Falcon grav tanks way back in 40k? Blood Angels turn 1 rhino rush? Anyone ever play against Daemons in 7th ed? Eldar in Gothic?
GW doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because over a 20 year period they have repeatedly shown they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. The next time GW produces a tightly balanced main game and/or is responsive in short timeframes to both balance and quality of life concerns for players will also be the first time GW has ever done this.
This is just calling a spade a spade; we are all here and play the games regardless (though I have already lost at least 1 player from my group in the AoS 3.0 change when he finally threw in the towel on Sylvaneth). However, to say GW has a good grip on any of these things would be a bit like saying Fiat has a good handle on automotive reliability. We can still like the game and criticize the company where valid.
To that end, it's pretty obvious there is some stuff that doesn't work well as 3.0 is currently designed. I think in particular, the interaction of larger base models and coherency for units over 5, Unleash Hell as an ability, and some of the points changes for a handful of factions (Slaanesh and Sylvaneth in particular) are going to make for some pretty justifiably salty people until that gets sorted out. My hope is GW sorts it out quickly while people are still in the annoyed/angry phase, because that means they are engaged.
The danger zone is my friend who I had to email to ask if he still wanted a core rulebook because he'd said nothing about AoS for close to a month, and then responded with "nah I'm good" and is busy playing other games while shelving his trees. Once they disengage, it's much harder to get people back.
Yeah I have similar experiences to this. Someone invests like £500 pounds in an army and painting time and GW wrecks them with bad rules and takes 2 years to fix it.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Eternalis said:
And then who playtested these changes?
I do agree though, Kragnos isn't worth 740pts...
But then, why did GW put him at this price? I mean BR:Kragnos has been written months ago and so does the GHB 21, why don't they give him the same price? Is he worse in V3 than he was in V2?Gork help us if he is worse!
-
1 minute ago, Zappgrot said:
Meh who knows. Rules change a lot during the design-proces. Might be that Kragnos started out whit some additional rules that we don't know about and those where changed at the last moment.
Who know but 695 points is still at least 100 points too many. It does generally make you wonder about the process and nothing shown so far explains his cost.
as loads have said, GW just never explains their design decisions.
-
13 minutes ago, MitGas said:
The internal playtesters might've also had access to Kragnos for months. As one of the very few in here, I'm not saying anything about the changes so far. Who knows, we might see warscrolls changes and other things than will recontextualize many decisions... or not - then I'll be the first to go into bird rage mode.
It also helps if you're a loyal subject of your patron - I stuck with Tzeentch when he was strong and when he was weak (and trust me he was bottom tier for aaaaaaaages in 40k). Considering modern divorce rates, I think I'm doing good. 😎Well if playtesters thought Kragnos was worth 760 points, then we are in far more trouble than we thought…
-
It really doesn’t make any sense but does realeasing a printed product that will likely be invalidated in multiple ways by release FAQs two weeks later indicate the sort of planning we hope for….
-
1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:
He's saying he's a playtester who has been testing AOS 3.0 for 18 months now. Which probably explains the level of personal investment someone would have to have to accuse people of being "ungrateful" for having a negative opinion of the points values.
FWIW, the basic message of "try before you write it off" is valid enough. I just wish GW would learn a little bit about communication, and realize that a lot of the negativity around the rules they release - whether points or otherwise - is rooted in not explaining their reasoning for doing various things, and therefore in confusion when the customer is presented with something that seems to make little sense, and no explanation as to why it was done.
GSG have been bad for so long that I’m not sure I have much faith in GW’s chosen playtesters saying they are ok.
It’s like all those online reviews given by people who receive free review copies of everything. Zero critical thought, full hype. They like their special status and freebies too much to rock the boat🤣
cynical rant over.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Enoby said:
I think the confusion is that Kragnos was changed from BR: Kragnos to the GHB, despite no time to playtest, whereas Kroak and Allarielle remained the same despite the similar circumstances
Yeah but Kragnos is such an anemic/vanilla design that it probably wasn’t complicated to reduce his points as he has zero interactivity with your army outside being a general. He still won’t be played at 700.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Kadeton said:
There's a strong disconnect here. Your view is based on the idea that GW undertook an edition change specifically to improve game balance, and therefore screwed it up. I think that's entirely misguided.
The core rules don't control balance, they're about establishing the fundamentals of gameplay. The purpose of an edition change isn't to shift the balance of the meta, it's to make improvements to the basic infrastructure of the game.* That will obviously have a strong effect on balance, but not necessarily a leveling out.
Balance is then addressed in the individual army rules, as they interact with the core rules. To update the game's balance, GW will need to release new battletomes, or otherwise update them through FAQs or campaign books. There will always be a period of adjustment during an edition change, where some armies (including some strong ones) get stronger and some (including some weak ones) get weaker. That's not a failure of intent in the new edition, just a natural and unavoidable consequence of any change to the rules.
* Whether or not GW failed at their goal of improving the basic mechanics is definitely still open for debate.
I guess the concern is that the already existing divide have been made worse by the new infrastructure and there are pretty long waits between points adjustments let alone FAQs or even worse, a battletome in 1.5 years.
so yeah its not a balance update but it affects balance, potentially has made it worse and it will only be fixed at a glacial GW pace.-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, novakai said:
i heard july 24 to august 14 is the targeted release block for the stuff
eh it because AoS isn't that popular compare to 40K stormcast aren't marines
though i think what hurting is that some new change or lack of certain changes might turn people off from the game right now
I find the drip feed of rules/points and changes (just like the 40k) new edition just tends to ****** people off as you literally can't be sure that there isn't another change just around the corner that might invalidate your purchases etc.... never buy anything until after the release FAQs and even they are not remotely safe if you are getting a new battletome soon. The 40k ones changed massively from FAQs to Battletomes.
All the twisty money-making decisions by GW slowly wear one down. They constantly use lack of transparency to push sales.
-
3
-
-
54 minutes ago, Bululu said:
well yes, except maybe the swamp shaman and the mounted hero, the rest of the warscrolls are very poor for their points, compared for example with the stormcast on the same box, the kruleboyz needs very hard upgrading through allegiance abilities, and hopefully it doesn't come in the form of stupid aura heroes wich die to shooting on turn 1 as usual.
That's the GSG special, heroes last 3 seconds....
-
3
-
-
36 minutes ago, Bululu said:
Nah i hope not, i mean they will get their "battletome" ironjawz and bonespliter did los nothing when they merged, as long as they remain same this time, its like having 3 battletomes +1 bigwahh for merging differents, for me that is all win. (specially because i already own a big wagh army 90% ironjawz 10% bonesplitters) so in my case i will use them in both kruleboyz army and big wagh. What i mean ironjawz and bonesplitter were treated as completly functional own alliance, not a subfaction on the orruk warclans book, plus we got big wagh, so i hope it will remain the same terms for kruleboyz and all of them
yeah that makes sense, but it gives GW the excuse to release very small model line... which for orruks is exactly what they have done repeatedly.
It's supposed to be a destruction edition but a limited Kruleboyz release and then yet another wave of Lumineth (as per rumours) will be mildly disappointing to say the least.
-
1 hour ago, Bululu said:
Ah, there were also some leaked stormcast points photo, and they were different than the GHB, so we might expect point changes once again.
Yeah I saw that.. Maybe Kragnos will go down to 600... or maybe not.
I was just thinking, following the less hardcore sales of Dominion, do you think a lot of people have been a bit put-off of Kruleboyz because it is a subfaction rather than a seperate battletome? I know that a few of my friends considering it have passed on the Dominion box until the full release line-up is known.I think a bunch of people like the models and want to run them on their own but that may not be practically possible if they are just supposed to fill a gap in Big waaagh. Yes I know GW has said lots of stuff about running them on their own but they intentionally hide dates and release etc so you can't plan purchases
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bululu said:
someone showed me a "leak" seemed real but you can never know, of a piece of kragnos warscroll where it had the keywords "TOTEM" and "DROGRUKH" but it didtn have nothing like orruk warclans or kruleboyz, i hope its false or it missed something cause listing kragnos under orruk warclans on GHB and not having any orruk warclans keywords seems awful, and it could mean still no alliance abilities for him.
They may be pretty hellbent on making him purely narrative (intentional or otherwise)
-
any new rumours or gossip for kruleboyz?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Nighthaunt already struggled before. Since their initial release, really. It sucks that they are now in an even worse position comparatively, but I think it's also true that GW should not let the fact that armies will temporarily be weak get in the way of making positive structural changes to the core rules.
For what it's worth, I hope Nighthaunt get an early battletome and maybe some big hero-monster soon.
The issue is that temporarily weak is years in gw time
-
3
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Chumphammer said:
1st gitz list. Might drop clammy cowl for 5+ ward
If only jaws of Mork didn’t tax you with Envoy of the overbounder and the screamersquig.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, novakai said:
i think you have to build an army around him to alleviate his shortcoming, he can be a little cheaper but his point decrease really help him, though generally most destruction army got a point increase as well so eh
i also think MW problem is a bit over blown because of the current LrL sentinel problem which probably shouldn't exist, but he on average immune to spells and only range MW really works on him, but a lot of changes makes taking those killer blocks of range units harder because of point increase and reincforcement point. (bar LRL but that case is just an unhealthy example)
to be fair he has ok not great but not terrible mobility, sadly the levitate spell is +8 to cast and not reliable to sure up this weakness
he probably wouldn't be able to fly over anything anyway as his base is too large to easily clear 3 inches behind a line. It's not just mortal wounds, it's anything with a bit of rend as well. No ward save is just bad on huge point investments.
This guy will likely never get to choose what he engages and if an enemy holds up Kragnos with cheap chaff all day , that is a win for them not you. He needs to get priority targets to be useful, not kill 300 points of zombies... -
32 minutes ago, Frowny said:
With the quintuple buffs of 1) Hero 2) Monster 3) 5 models on objectives 4) Points drop 5) Easy access to a 1+ save multiple ways) he seems much better positioned than he was even a little bit ago. Yes, he dies to mortal wounds slowly, but he can always heroic recovery back ~4 wounds per turn, so if you don't get him in one go, you have a lot of wounds to chew through. Easy access to a 1+ save and magic resistant will make him very hard to take down, while his charge. Plus he has natural anti-monster abilities, which go well into our future age of monsters.
He seems pretty worthwhile in the right list. Maybe in Ogres so he can hide amongst all the other monsters, who can also charge and clear screens for him., who usually have a 5+ if they need to resist his ally damage and with multiple ways to heal it off.
I think he has potential.
The issues are all the same as before....
1) He gets taken down quickly by mortal wounds and they are literally everywhere. 700 point model with no FNP/ward is just a very expensive target.2) His mobility is presently (not withstanding potential battletome buffs) is very poor. Slow for his size, big base, smaller tables easily chaffed/blocked.
if something answers those questions then he has potential. -
1 hour ago, zamerion said:
seeing that there are no more units in the GHB, maybe we won't have a book until September / October?
That probably fits the timelines for the initial 40k releases
-
3 hours ago, Tezia99 said:
I’m pretty hyped to get them and paint. I can’t imagine this army is going to just suck so bad it’s unplayable. Knowing we have limited rules at the moment isn’t enjoyable, seriously hoping that a new tome is dropping immediately after dominion. What’s the point of a brand new army with scrap rules. Has GW ever just released an army with no tome? I’m glad they’re in the cool starter box but would have loved to see new sculpts on another army and these guys to get a proper release with all their rules and models.
Does destruction need yet another low power army...nothing is unplayable but there is/was literally one strong list for ironjaws and the rest not so much.
-
Yeap makes sense. Thanks both!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:
I'm gathering by the lack of posting that NOBODY thinks Kragnos is worth taking now. He's going on eBay then.
I have unfortunately bought one but it is still unopened pending some miracle that makes him OK...
-
1
-
General Lumineth Realm Lords Rules Discussion
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by C0deb1ue
I struggle a bit with this answer, as the sentinels are clearly and widely known to be oppressive. Mortals on 5+ with a ranged unit that doesn't need LOS is absolutely bonkers and has been widely abused by people running lists with like 80 sentinels.
This is pretty common knowledge stuff and is about as NPE as is possible in a game like AOS as it requires nil effort to do with little ability to counter/interact. No-one except LRL plyers were pleased to see the GHB taking a light touch on sentinels.
The rest of it is probably ok.